PrepTest 157

[lcid:3724] Prep Test 157 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

 Some environmentalists claim that the higher the international debt a nation carries, the more likely it is that the quality Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary Topic: Social Sciences

Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Environmentalists' conclusion on debt/low quality of life and premises ("exports promotion hypothesis" holds that debt causes nations to harm their environments by producing many exports; governments reduce domestic spending)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Some environmentalists' views:
      • The international debt a nation carries lowers its quality of life, as repaying the debt depletes national resources, increases pollution, and decreases domestic spending (first and second sentences)
    • List of two reasons international debt lowers a nation's quality of life, according to some environmentalists:
      • "Exports promotion hypothesis": Nations shift their focus to exporting many goods, which causes more environmental damage than domestic goods (third through fifth sentences)
      • The government spends less on domestic services like healthcare, education, water, and sanitation when it carries a high debt (seventh and eighth sentences)
    • Example of the "exports promotion hypothesis," according to some environmentalists:
      • A nation might cut down forests for timber or open up land to plant cash crops (sixth sentence)
    • Example of how reducing domestic spending could harm a nation's quality of life, according to some environmentalists:
      • The government eliminates subsidies for practices that reduce pollution or conserve resources (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • The author's criticism that the evidence for the environmentalists' claims (some studies don't show a correlation between debt/deforestation; cutting domestic spending can help the environment)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • The environmentalists' evidence is weak, as studies do not show a consistent correlation between debt and deforestation or pollution, and reigning in domestic spending can help the environment (first through fifth sentences)
      • So, we don't know whether a nation's quality of life is connected to the size of its debt (seventh sentence)
    • Example of how reducing domestic spending could not harm a nation's quality of life, according to the author:
      • The government might decide to abandon plans to build new dams or roads or to eliminate subsidies that promote fertilizer or pesticide use (sixth sentences sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "weak" (first sentence); "indicates that" (second sentence); "only a slight positive correlation" (third sentence); "in fact" (third sentence); "it is just as likely" (fifth sentence); "must be considered unknown" (seventh sentence); "a case could be made" (last sentence); "may rein in potentially harmful spending" (last sentence)

Main Point:

There is very little evidence to support some environmentalists' claim that the more international debt a nation carries, the more its quality of life suffers.


Meta-Structure?

Criticizing a Viewpoint: We think this passage best fits the Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure.* In such a passage, the author describes a view held by another person or group and then criticizes that view. Importantly, the author's argument should focus primarily on why the view is wrong, unjustified, or misguided.

And that's what the author does in this passage. The author focuses on the "weak" evidence for the environmentalists' argument about the relationship between a nation's international debt and quality of life (P2, S1). The author points out that there is very little evidence to support the environmentalists' claims that debt leads to deforestation and pollution or that a reduction in domestic spending will necessarily harm a nation's quality of life. In other words, the author focuses on why the environmentalists' conclusion is unjustified by the available evidence.

When a passage uses a Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure, the main point is generally the author's central criticism. So, the main point of this passage is relatively straightforward: "There is very little evidence to support some environmentalists' claim that the more international debt a nation carries, the more its quality of life suffers."

*As is often the case for passages that fall into the Critical Meta-Structure family, several other major Critical Meta-Structures could describe this passage. If you labeled this as a Rebutting Critics or Correcting the Record passage, you would still develop a valuable understanding of the passage's main point and structure.


Last Thoughts?

This author takes issue with the environmentalists' evidence. Does this mean that the author thinks that the environmentalists' conclusion is false? That international debt doesn't reduce a nation's quality of life?

Nope. We have no idea whether international debt reduces a nation's quality of life. We only know that the environmentalists' haven't proven that claim. This idea is often tested on the Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT, too, so let’s dig into it.

Sometimes, this line of flawed reasoning is referred to as the "absence of evidence" flaw. Disproving someone's evidence doesn't disprove their conclusion. And that's because people sometimes support true conclusions with bad evidence. One could say, "We can conclude that a diet full of fruits and vegetables is healthy since I just ate a cheeseburger and I feel great." Obviously, that evidence is very bad (for many reasons). But I think we can still agree that the conclusion is true.

The same thing applies to this argument. Just because the author argues that environmentalists lack good evidence for their conclusion doesn't mean that the environmentalists' conclusion is automatically false. After all, perhaps researchers will eventually generate evidence that proves that international debt reduces a nation's quality of life. For this reason, we shouldn't select answer choices that say or imply that the environmentalists' conclusion is false or that international debt does not reduce a nation's quality of life.

Question prompt

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Strategy Overview

Review the main point, and use notes or highlighted/underlined text in the passage to recall the author's attitude on this topic, and find the answer that best reflects your understanding of the main point/author's attitude

Answer Anticipation

For Author's Attitude questions, the answer choices tend to fall into one of two categories: two-word answer choices or opinion + detail answer choices. The former generally capture only the direction (positive/negative/neutral) and strength of the author's opinion. The latter generally captures the direction and strength in one word, then fills in some details in the passage. This one falls into the latter camp. In this case, we can use our notes or what we highlighted/underlined to identify where the author expressed their opinion on reductions in domestic spending in response to the need to repay international debt. According to our note for the second paragraph, the author says that "cutting domestic spending can help the environment." This rebuts the environmentalists' claim that these spending reductions can damage a nation's quality of life. This is probably all the information we need to assess the answer choices. However, if we want to make a slightly more precise and informed anticipation, we can review the second paragraph. There, the author says that "it is just as likely that" a government would reduce spending by cutting programs that are harmful to the environment (P2, S5). The author also claims that "a case could be made that at least some of the fiscal discipline or economic restructuring imposed by debt may rein in potentially harmful spending" (P2, S8). So, overall, the author doesn't think that reductions in domestic spending will necessarily be bad for the environment or quality of life. The author doesn't use bold words that express strong certainty, so we should soften our anticipation. Let's look for an answer choice that says, "doubt that its effects are entirely bad," or something like that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    optimism that they will Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    Does this answer choice say, "doubt that its effects are entirely bad," or something like that?

    No, this is a bit too strong. The author isn't sure that the effects of spending reductions will be all bad. However, that doesn't mean that the author is hopeful that the reductions will improve a nation's quality of life. After all, the author claims that "debt-saddled nations might shift money away from programs designed to enhance quality of life" (P2, S5), which suggests that the author recognizes the possibility that spending reductions would harm a nation's quality of life.

  2. B
    concern that governments may Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    Does this answer choice say, "doubt that its effects are entirely bad," or something like that?

    Nope, so we can cross off (B). Besides, we didn't review anything about governments' "will to carry out" spending reductions in our notes or the second paragraph. So, (B) does not capture the author's attitude toward these reductions.

  3. C
    insistence upon restricting them Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    Does this answer choice say, "doubt that its effects are entirely bad," or something like that?

    Negative. For that reason, we can eliminate (C) without thinking about it too deeply. Besides, we didn't see anything about health care or education in our review of our notes and the second paragraph. Indeed, the only time these topics come up is when the environmentalists posit that spending reductions may lead to health care and education cuts. The author never insists that we should only cut health-care and education spending.

  4. D
    conviction that they need Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    Does this answer choice say, "doubt that its effects are entirely bad," or something like that?

    Nope. We can immediately eliminate (D) once we see it doesn't match our anticipation. Besides, we didn't see anything about whether these cuts need to be "short-term" or long-term measures when we reviewed our notes and the second paragraph. The author never brings up these topics, so (D) doesn't capture the author's attitude toward these spending reductions.

  5. E
    skepticism about whether their Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    Does this answer choice say, "doubt that its effects are entirely bad," or something like that?

    Yes! This matches both the author's sentiment in our anticipation ("predominantly negative" is very close to "entirely bad") and the strength with which the author believes that sentiment ("skepticism" is synonymous with "doubt.") This captures the author's attitude toward the spending reductions, so we can select (E) confidently.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion